"Baby It's Cold Outside", for modern audiences

[cinnaminny]

If you think the song is "rapey" then why not use it as a lesson? I hate the manipulative song "Grenade" by Bruno Mars. When it came on the radio, I'd tell my DD to run as fast as she can away from anyone who says things like:

I would hope most people would use those lessons to warn their kids. I would hate for people to teach their daughters this is just a fun flirty thing people do lol

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Well shoot since you said that, it changed everything. Wow. Well that settles it.

Try reading up thread. The intent of the song was presented there.

 

[cinnaminny]

Try reading up thread. The intent of the song was presented there.

I did read the thread, nothing compelling. Why don't you read the thread? In the movie, this song was written for, she was already having an alcoholic beverage and later wondered what was in that drink. She already knew about the booze. (as I pointed out earlier)

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I did read the thread, nothing compelling. Why don't you read the thread? In the movie, this song was written for, she was already having an alcoholic beverage and later wondered what was in that drink. She already knew about the booze. (as I pointed out earlier)

Well first of all you're wrong on yet another thing. The song wasn't written for the movie. Loesser wrote the song in 1944 and sang the duet with his wife for the first time at a party in New York. They performed it multiple times at multiple parties. It wasn't until 1948 that the song was sold to MGM and it was inserted into the movie which released in June, 1949.
Secondly, we've given you the context of the time it was written and the intent. You can either choose to listen or continue to believe wrongly.

 

[cinnaminny]

Well first of all you're wrong on yet another thing. The song wasn't written for the movie. Loesser wrote the song in 1944 and sang the duet with his wife for the first time at a party in New York. They performed it multiple times at multiple parties. It wasn't until 1948 that the song was sold to MGM and it was inserted into the movie which released in June, 1949.
Secondly, we've given you the context of the time it was written and the intent. You can either choose to listen or continue to believe wrongly.

Okay, it was first recorded for that movie. The people who created that movie knew what that reference was and used it, in context, but played it off as charming and fun. Slipping things in peoples drinks is not a new concept. Today people point to the exact same thing the movie did, they just don't follow it up with how adorable.

 

[rastahomie]

I think the DIS Boards needs to add another category to the list of Forbidden Subjects. Joining politics and religion is "Your Interpretation of 70-Year-Old Songs," lol.

 

[ashley0139]

I don't get the attitude here. Are you...angry because some people don't interpret a song the same way you do? Believe it or not, there are some rebels around who don't take knee-jerk offence to everything.

The only offense I take is the implication on this thread that those who have different opinions than you can't think. I take no offense to the song, I just don't like it.

Edit: and the reason I said it wasn't worth it was because I didn't really fancy having a bunch of mentions of people yelling at me for being someone who takes knee-jerk "offence" to everything. Wonder why.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

I can certainly appreciate that it was written in a different time. I can also appreciate that the writer created and performed the song with his wife.

As a woman in 2017, who was born way before the times of this song, it comes across as a little rapey to me. The lyrics make me uncomfortable because in today’s world this sounds like coercion.

There are a lot of really filthy disrespectful lyrics in songs today. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been bopping along in the car to something with a fun beat and actually start listening and I’m like oh damn this song is filthy!

I think this song hits a nerve with some because it’s billed as cute and flirty. Nobody thinks rap songs talking about pimps and hoes as anything but nasty. This song is like the poster song for rape culture (in today’s context) where it’s billed cute to relentlessly pursue a woman plying her with booze when really it’s just creepy.

I’m not one for censorship so I don’t think radio stations should ban it, but it’s hard for me to think of it as a fun flirty song.

 

[DisneyHardin]

This thread has been very interesting I never in a million years would have thought there was anything sinister about this song. I always thought the woman wanted to stay longer, but was worried what people might think, not that she was being forcefully coerced into staying by the man.

 

[ShirikiUtundu]

This thread has been very interesting I never in a million years would have thought there was anything sinister about this song. I always thought the woman wanted to stay longer, but was worried what people might think, not that she was being forcefully coerced into staying by the man.

That's exactly what the song is about. It has nothing to do with being manipulated by alcohol or words or anything else. She is being coy because that was what was expected of a lady in society at that time. She wants everything the man does, but because she is a woman, she is not allowed to verbalize it and act like that or else she'll get branded a certain way.
Other "interpretations" simply show ignorance of the era.

 

[Buckeye218]

This thread has been very interesting I never in a million years would have thought there was anything sinister about this song. I always thought the woman wanted to stay longer, but was worried what people might think, not that she was being forcefully coerced into staying by the man.

And you would be correct. In my opinion, that is clearly how the song's intentions should be construed. However, it is the cause du jour to twist innocent phrases/lyrics/words to invent new offenses and the first person to think of or find a new one is hailed as a social justice hero/heroine.

 

[L&Lfan]

And you would be correct. In my opinion, that is clearly how the song's intentions should be construed. However, it is the cause du jour to twist innocent phrases/lyrics/words to invent new offenses and the first person to think of or find a new one is hailed as a social justice hero/heroine.

Fabulous post. You nailed it completely! I agree totally.

 

[bcla]

As a woman in 2017, who was born way before the times of this song, it comes across as a little rapey to me. The lyrics make me uncomfortable because in today’s world this sounds like coercion.

There are a lot of really filthy disrespectful lyrics in songs today. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been bopping along in the car to something with a fun beat and actually start listening and I’m like oh damn this song is filthy!

Sure. However, regardless of the original context I started the discussion with a thought about a more modern reading of how the lyrics might be received. I get that there's a lot of stuff that were considered OK in their day. The other deal is that this song is considered family friendly and not explicit. I saw it performed on a Disney special. And in that version the line about "what's in this drink" was maintained, but the line about "maybe just a cigarette" more was taken out in favor of "maybe just half a drink more".

I'm pretty sure that when teens these days hear "what's in this drink" many are thinking it could be a reference to spiking with a sedative. Few are going to actively research the meaning of a 70 year old song.

 

[sam_gordon]

Tone changes the meaning of words. You can't really hear tone (IMO) in a song. So those saying "it meant this" or "it meant that" are simply interpreting the tone different. Same words w/different tones changes the entire meaning.

I know this is a commercial, but it's a prime example. Two people using the exact same words but they have totally different meanings...

 

[NHdisneylover]

Tone changes the meaning of words. You can't really hear tone (IMO) in a song. So those saying "it meant this" or "it meant that" are simply interpreting the tone different. Same words w/different tones changes the entire meaning.

I know this is a commercial, but it's a prime example. Two people using the exact same words but they have totally different meanings...

I think you can hear tone in a song---Dolly Parton'S version of this one conveys it the most clearly IMO.

That said, in addition to the tone, there is the historical context to consider here.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Sure. However, regardless of the original context I started the discussion with a thought about a more modern reading of how the lyrics might be received. I get that there's a lot of stuff that were considered OK in their day. The other deal is that this song is considered family friendly and not explicit. I saw it performed on a Disney special. And in that version the line about "what's in this drink" was maintained, but the line about "maybe just a cigarette" more was taken out in favor of "maybe just half a drink more".

I'm pretty sure that when teens these days hear "what's in this drink" many are thinking it could be a reference to spiking with a sedative. Few are going to actively research the meaning of a 70 year old song.

Are both the lines (a ciagrette and half a dirnk) in most of the older versions? Did Disney do the entire thing, or a shorter version? (I might be wrong about that---I am pretty neutral to the song, it's not one I ever paid much attention to until it became the source of such derision)

Yes---I can see where this song might sound ominous to someone with no concept of the time period it is from whatsoever---but even pretty little kids can understand that times have changed and why (if they pay attention to anyhting other than the line about it being cold and an explanation is needed.)
Disney also has a whole slate of films in which 16 year olds get married. Most of us can understand that those are based on fairy tales from back when it was an age people did get married (commonly) and not feel Disney needs to go in and edit all their movies to change those ages to 23 or something.

 

[Klayfish]

Wow, we've beat this horse to death.

Wait, I probably just offended horse lovers. Let me rephrase, we've beaten this topic to death.

 

[bcla]

Are both the lines (a ciagrette and half a dirnk) in most of the older versions? Did Disney do the entire thing, or a shorter version? (I might be wrong about that---I am pretty neutral to the song, it's not one I ever paid much attention to until it became the source of such derision)

Entire song. I've heard the song enough times that I can tell when something has been changed. The line about smoking is the only like that's been changed in this version.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think you can hear tone in a song---Dolly Parton'S version of this one conveys it the most clearly IMO.

That said, in addition to the tone, there is the historical context to consider here.

Conveys what? The "rapey" (what kind of word is that anyway)-ness of the song or the "innocence" of it? Wouldn't different singers put different tone on it?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Okay, it was first recorded for that movie. The people who created that movie knew what that reference was and used it, in context, but played it off as charming and fun. Slipping things in peoples drinks is not a new concept. Today people point to the exact same thing the movie did, they just don't follow it up with how adorable.

They knew what it was about even though you do not.